It's all gone now, but I remember it still standing when I was a kid, on the west edge of town...
Friday, March 14, 2008
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Friday, February 22, 2008
Feb. 21: Understanding the Past / Cannibalism and Creationism
Feb. 21: Reading assignments for Thursday, Feb. 21: Ashmore and Sharer, Chapter 9: “Understanding the Past,” Pp. 212-237 and Chapter 11, “Old Time Religion – New Age Visions,” pp. 278-310.
Monty Python is at it again, talking about things that people would really rather not talk about...in this case cannibalism and other nasty bits!
Today's assignment was to read the chapter in Ashmore and Sharer about how archaeologists try and understand the past through one of the three "schools of thought" in contemporary archaeology, Culture-History, Processualism, and Post-Processualism. The main thing to remember is that the Culture-History developed first, focused on historical explanations for culture change (what, when, where), and was the dominant approach up until the 1960s. Processualism was a materialist reaction which really began in earnest in the 1960s, as a dissatisfaction with the Culture-History school; processualism was an attempt to find laws of cultural change (how and why) through rigorous application of the scientific method. However it also could go only so far in grappling with issues of the human past, and so in the 1980s, it was critiqued itself in a new movement (actually a series of approaches) called postprocessualism, which tied to get at the individual's place in the human past and the attempt to learn about the ideology (meaning, symbolism, etc.) of past cultures. The outline of the chapter is found below.
We watched the second half of the videotape "Archaeology: Ancient America;" the first half we watched in Tuesday's class. The tape's first half was about the 9000-year-old Archaic culture of the U.S. Southwest, which would develop into the Anasazi, and then the Pueblo Indians. The second half was about the evidence for cannibalism found in some of the caves occupied during the times of the Anasazi, a matter of debate among archaeologists. We talked in class about the evidence, about the different types of cannibalism (ritual cannibalism, contingency cannibalism, and dietary cannibalism) and found that while cannibalism is nowhere near as common as popular imagination would believe, it has, and does happen in severe survival situations (contingency cannibalism as a result of the plane crash in the Andes, or the stories of the Wendigo in the Canadian subarctic) and in some ritual contexts in a few cultures (eating or biting the heart of a brave enemy to attain his courage in my tribe, the Ioway, or the former cannibalism of certain peoples in Papua New Guinea associated with the disease "kuru"). But there is no evidence of sustained dietary cannibalism of any group of people in a nonsurvival situation. Ultimately, this taboo is so embedded in human experience, it still brings up strong emotional reactions when discussed...even in scientists! ;-)
And in the last discussion of the day, we wrestled with the chapter in Feder about scientific creationism, and the evidence and social context of arguments for and against it. It was a tough discussion, I hope we will have more, but one we can't shy away from, whatever we ultimately decide to believe for ourselves about what we think we understand about the past. If anthropologists/archaeologists can't talk about taboo subjects, who can?
==========================
I. CULTURE HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION- Temporal and spatial syntheses of data- what, when, where
- A. Inevitable variation- all cultures change over time
- B. Internal factors:
--- 1. Cultural invention- new ideas arise within cultures
--- 2. Cultural selection- like natural selection
--- 3. Cultural drift- like genetic drift, tranmission incomplete so over time has a random effect
--- 4. Cultural revival- of elements that fallen into disuse
- C. External factors:
--- 1. Diffusion
--- 2. Trade
--- 3. Migration
--- 4. Conquest
--- 5. Environmental change
II. PROCESSUAL INTERPRETATION- Often based on data collected through culture history, test series of competing hypotheses- how and why
- A. Systems (synchronic)- interactions in system
--- 1. Feedback
--- 2. Negative feedback
--- 3. Positive feedback
- B. Ecological (synchronic)- interaction with its environment
--- 1. Cultural ecology: physical landscape, biological component, cultural environment
--- 2. Cultural adaptation
--- 3. Computer simulation
- C. Multilinear evolutionary concepts (diachronic)- over time, causality from either prime movers or multiple/multivariate factors
--- 1. Multilinear cultural evolutionary models
--- 2. Prime movers
--- 3. Multivariate strategy
III. POSTPROCESSUAL AND EMERGENT INTERPRETATIONS- original meaning of culture at level of individual, as decision-maker and meaning-laden context (cultural relativity)
- A. Decision-making models
IV. UNDERSTANDING THE PAST FROM MULTIPLE APPROACHES
- A. Combine all three
FEDER Chapter 11: "Old Time Religion- New Age Visions"
Scientific creationism: Noah’s ark, Footprints in time, Creationism through animatronics, Other guises of creationism
The Shroud of Turin- testing the shroud
Burial boxes of Jerusalem
New Age Prehistory
Current Perspectives: Religions Old and New
Reading assignment for next class, Tuesday, Feb. 26, 2008: Ashmore and Sharer, Chapter 10: “Archaeology Today,” pp. 238-254 and Feder, Chapter 12, “Real Mysteries of a Veritable Past,” pp. 311-333.
Understanding the Past...and Difficult Subjects (Cannibalism and Creationism)
Monty Python is at it again, talking about things that people would really rather not talk about...in this case cannibalism and other nasty bits!
Today's assignment was to read the chapter in Ashmore and Sharer about how archaeologists try and understand the past through one of the three "schools of thought" in contemporary archaeology, Culture-History, Processualism, and Post-Processualism. The main thing to remember is that the Culture-History developed first, focused on historical explanations for culture change (what, when, where), and was the dominant approach up until the 1960s. Processualism was a materialist reaction which really began in earnest in the 1960s, as a dissatisfaction with the Culture-History school; processualism was an attempt to find laws of cultural change (how and why) through rigorous application of the scientific method. However it also could go only so far in grappling with issues of the human past, and so in the 1980s, it was critiqued itself in a new movement (actually a series of approaches) called postprocessualism, which tied to get at the individual's place in the human past and the attempt to learn about the ideology (meaning, symbolism, etc.) of past cultures. The outline of the chapter is found below.
We watched the second half of the videotape "Archaeology: Ancient America;" the first half we watched in Tuesday's class. The tape's first half was about the 9000-year-old Archaic culture of the U.S. Southwest, which would develop into the Anasazi, and then the Pueblo Indians. The second half was about the evidence for cannibalism found in some of the caves occupied during the times of the Anasazi, a matter of debate among archaeologists. We talked in class about the evidence, about the different types of cannibalism (ritual cannibalism, contingency cannibalism, and dietary cannibalism) and found that while cannibalism is nowhere near as common as popular imagination would believe, it has, and does happen in severe survival situations (contingency cannibalism as a result of the plane crash in the Andes, or the stories of the Wendigo in the Canadian subarctic) and in some ritual contexts in a few cultures (eating or biting the heart of a brave enemy to attain his courage in my tribe, the Ioway, or the former cannibalism of certain peoples in Papua New Guinea associated with the disease "kuru"). But there is no evidence of sustained dietary cannibalism of any group of people in a nonsurvival situation. Ultimately, this taboo is so embedded in human experience, it still brings up strong emotional reactions when discussed...even in scientists! ;-)
And in the last discussion of the day, we wrestled with the chapter in Feder about scientific creationism, and the evidence and social context of arguments for and against it. It was a tough discussion, I hope we will have more, but one we can't shy away from, whatever we ultimately decide to believe for ourselves about what we think we understand about the past. If anthropologists/archaeologists can't talk about taboo subjects, who can?
==========================
I. CULTURE HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION- Temporal and spatial syntheses of data- what, when, where
- A. Inevitable variation- all cultures change over time
- B. Internal factors:
--- 1. Cultural invention- new ideas arise within cultures
--- 2. Cultural selection- like natural selection
--- 3. Cultural drift- like genetic drift, tranmission incomplete so over time has a random effect
--- 4. Cultural revival- of elements that fallen into disuse
- C. External factors:
--- 1. Diffusion
--- 2. Trade
--- 3. Migration
--- 4. Conquest
--- 5. Environmental change
II. PROCESSUAL INTERPRETATION- Often based on data collected through culture history, test series of competing hypotheses- how and why
- A. Systems (synchronic)- interactions in system
--- 1. Feedback
--- 2. Negative feedback
--- 3. Positive feedback
- B. Ecological (synchronic)- interaction with its environment
--- 1. Cultural ecology: physical landscape, biological component, cultural environment
--- 2. Cultural adaptation
--- 3. Computer simulation
- C. Multilinear evolutionary concepts (diachronic)- over time, causality from either prime movers or multiple/multivariate factors
--- 1. Multilinear cultural evolutionary models
--- 2. Prime movers
--- 3. Multivariate strategy
III. POSTPROCESSUAL AND EMERGENT INTERPRETATIONS- original meaning of culture at level of individual, as decision-maker and meaning-laden context (cultural relativity)
- A. Decision-making models
IV. UNDERSTANDING THE PAST FROM MULTIPLE APPROACHES
- A. Combine all three
FEDER Chapter 11: "Old Time Religion- New Age Visions"
Scientific creationism: Noah’s ark, Footprints in time, Creationism through animatronics, Other guises of creationism
The Shroud of Turin- testing the shroud
Burial boxes of Jerusalem
New Age Prehistory
Current Perspectives: Religions Old and New
Reading assignment for next class, Tuesday, Feb. 26, 2008: Ashmore and Sharer, Chapter 10: “Archaeology Today,” pp. 238-254 and Feder, Chapter 12, “Real Mysteries of a Veritable Past,” pp. 311-333.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Paper Style Guide Issue
I notice that the AAA website currently has problems with its style guide PDF file. Instead, use the SAA style guide, which is pretty much the same. It is at: http://www.saa.org/publications/Styleguide/styleGuide.pdf. You might want to download and save the entire PDF document for reference in case SAA has problems in the future when you are writing your Paper #2.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Feb. 19: Reconstructing the Past
Feb. 19: Reading assignment for today’s class: Ashmore and Sharer, Chapter 8: “Reconstructing the Past,” Pp. 179-211.
Learn more about this image at The Darl Living Surface: A Transitional Archaic Camp
Past activities can never be observed, so must interpret based on comparison with other societies- living, recorded in writing (history, ethnography)
Analogy- unknown is inferred from known
Uses and abuses of analogy (e.g., Abuse (use of only one criterion))
Specific and General Analogy
Specific analogy-
1. cultural continuity,
2. comparability in environment
3. similarity of cultural form
General analogy- actualistic studies between actual behaviors and particular material remains
Sources of Analogs:
Historical
Ethnographic
Ethnoarchaeology (living societies)
Experimental archaeology
More the analog links, more reliable-- sources such as history, enthnography, actualistic studies (experimental archaeology)
Analog + spatial order of data = reconstruction of past behavior
Learn about using GIS in archaeology at ESRI's Journal of GIS in Archaeology
Three broad areas- Techno-economic (text terms it technology, but really focuses on both technology and economics), 2. Social Systems, and 3. Ideology
1. Technology (includes economy too, so sometimes also called Techno-economic) – most direct (physical) interaction with the environment- the set of techniques and knowledge to procure raw resources and transform them into tools, food, shelter, etc. -Cultural choices using the environment- Cultural ecology.
Cultural Ecology- interaction of people/culture with the natural environment. Much of it is focused on subsistence. Reconstruct the ancient environment through observation of the current landscape (topography and biotic & mineral resources) and collection/analysis of ecofacts.
2. Social systems- roles and relationships among people, such as kinship, political structure, exchange networks, etc. - settlement patterns- spatial arrangement at different scales- activity areas, households, sites, landscapes (site cachement), regions- which data are nonlocal and represent exchanges (analogies from ethnography, economics, geography)
Two different approaches:
A. Settlement Archaeology- study of spatial distribution of ancient human activities and occupations at scales from site to regional
B. Exchange systems- ways to acquire goods and services not available locally
Spatial patterns reflect behavioral patterns-
a. single structure/household/occupation level (ex: cave floor)- activity areas (food preparation, sleep, storage) (ex: Micromorphology)
b. sites or settlements may reflect social stratification and social control (size and elaboration of residential units)
c. region (GIS helps)
-reconstruct function of each component in the settlement system and look at ways the components fit together into system (social network)
-Regional Analysis (from economic geography)
Locational Analysis- located in place where maximum number of resources can most efficiently be used with least amount of effort, natural environment and also neighboring groups
Central Place Theory- as landscape fills with people, settlements tend to be evenly distributed, and central places- settlements with wider goods and services, arise at regular intervals in overall distribution- pattern tends to be hexagonal-lattice, like honeycomb
==Most recently broadest scale also focuses on the landscape, relationships among all cultural and natural features on the land
--Symbols attached to natural features in the land, such as mounds and rock art locations
3. Ideology- ideological systems- knowledge and beliefs as way to explain the world and meaning of life --most difficult to approach in archaeology- few material remains- symbols (symbolic archaeology) but difficult to be sure of the interpretation- writing IF present can help but many societies did not have writing, --rock art, pottery decorations, archaeoastronomy- study of ancient astronomical knowledge from material remains (observatories, medicine wheels, solar year, lunar phases, and stars), etc. can all help with this. Worldviews underlying concepts- three vs four, etc
The Goal of Archaeology is to reconstruct and understand past lifeways- most complete reconstructions should take into account all three areas—although technology-economy are the easiest areas to investigate, and social organization is not far behind, the reconstruction also should attempt to work with the ideological sphere as well, though as an immaterial aspect of culture (though its products often have material results), ideology is much more difficult and less amenable to the scientific method which was developed for material aspects of reality (and some scientists believe that materiality IS the only reality!)
Reading assignments for next class on Thursday, Feb. 21: Ashmore and Sharer, Chapter 9: “Understanding the Past,” Pp. 212-237 and Chapter 11, “Old Time Religion – New Age Visions,” pp. 278-310.
Reconstructing the Past
Learn more about this image at The Darl Living Surface: A Transitional Archaic Camp
I. ANALOGY
Past activities can never be observed, so must interpret based on comparison with other societies- living, recorded in writing (history, ethnography)
Analogy- unknown is inferred from known
Uses and abuses of analogy (e.g., Abuse (use of only one criterion))
Specific and General Analogy
Specific analogy-
1. cultural continuity,
2. comparability in environment
3. similarity of cultural form
General analogy- actualistic studies between actual behaviors and particular material remains
Sources of Analogs:
Historical
Ethnographic
Ethnoarchaeology (living societies)
Experimental archaeology
More the analog links, more reliable-- sources such as history, enthnography, actualistic studies (experimental archaeology)
Analog + spatial order of data = reconstruction of past behavior
Learn about using GIS in archaeology at ESRI's Journal of GIS in Archaeology
II. IDENTIFYING ACTIVITIES IN SPACE
Three broad areas- Techno-economic (text terms it technology, but really focuses on both technology and economics), 2. Social Systems, and 3. Ideology
1. Technology (includes economy too, so sometimes also called Techno-economic) – most direct (physical) interaction with the environment- the set of techniques and knowledge to procure raw resources and transform them into tools, food, shelter, etc. -Cultural choices using the environment- Cultural ecology.
Cultural Ecology- interaction of people/culture with the natural environment. Much of it is focused on subsistence. Reconstruct the ancient environment through observation of the current landscape (topography and biotic & mineral resources) and collection/analysis of ecofacts.
2. Social systems- roles and relationships among people, such as kinship, political structure, exchange networks, etc. - settlement patterns- spatial arrangement at different scales- activity areas, households, sites, landscapes (site cachement), regions- which data are nonlocal and represent exchanges (analogies from ethnography, economics, geography)
Two different approaches:
A. Settlement Archaeology- study of spatial distribution of ancient human activities and occupations at scales from site to regional
B. Exchange systems- ways to acquire goods and services not available locally
Spatial patterns reflect behavioral patterns-
a. single structure/household/occupation level (ex: cave floor)- activity areas (food preparation, sleep, storage) (ex: Micromorphology)
b. sites or settlements may reflect social stratification and social control (size and elaboration of residential units)
c. region (GIS helps)
-reconstruct function of each component in the settlement system and look at ways the components fit together into system (social network)
-Regional Analysis (from economic geography)
Locational Analysis- located in place where maximum number of resources can most efficiently be used with least amount of effort, natural environment and also neighboring groups
Central Place Theory- as landscape fills with people, settlements tend to be evenly distributed, and central places- settlements with wider goods and services, arise at regular intervals in overall distribution- pattern tends to be hexagonal-lattice, like honeycomb
==Most recently broadest scale also focuses on the landscape, relationships among all cultural and natural features on the land
--Symbols attached to natural features in the land, such as mounds and rock art locations
3. Ideology- ideological systems- knowledge and beliefs as way to explain the world and meaning of life --most difficult to approach in archaeology- few material remains- symbols (symbolic archaeology) but difficult to be sure of the interpretation- writing IF present can help but many societies did not have writing, --rock art, pottery decorations, archaeoastronomy- study of ancient astronomical knowledge from material remains (observatories, medicine wheels, solar year, lunar phases, and stars), etc. can all help with this. Worldviews underlying concepts- three vs four, etc
The Goal of Archaeology is to reconstruct and understand past lifeways- most complete reconstructions should take into account all three areas—although technology-economy are the easiest areas to investigate, and social organization is not far behind, the reconstruction also should attempt to work with the ideological sphere as well, though as an immaterial aspect of culture (though its products often have material results), ideology is much more difficult and less amenable to the scientific method which was developed for material aspects of reality (and some scientists believe that materiality IS the only reality!)
Reading assignments for next class on Thursday, Feb. 21: Ashmore and Sharer, Chapter 9: “Understanding the Past,” Pp. 212-237 and Chapter 11, “Old Time Religion – New Age Visions,” pp. 278-310.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Feb. 14: Dating the Past
Feb. 14: Dating the Past
Reading for Today: Ashmore and Sharer, "Dating the Past," pp. 157-178.
This is a great video about radiocarbon dating, also known as carbon-14 dating! This is the most generally useful method of absolute dating used in archaeology.
The most important things to remember about dating archaeological data:
1. Every method has its applicability/limitations to certain situations, materials, and ages.
2. The more you can cross-check dates through different methods, the more reliable the dates.
3. Your dates are only as good as your data, the way they were collected, etc.
4. You generally will not do the dating yourself, only the sampling; data is sent to laboratories and specialists, and can be expensive.
5. Dating materials is not an end in itself; dating is only significant in terms of the research questions you are asking.
TOPICS DISCUSSED IN CLASS (Read the Chapter for details):
Direct dating- analysis of the artifact, ecofact, or feature itself to find its age
vs
Indirect dating- analysis of the material associated with the artifact/ecofact/feature to find the age (ex: the matrix around the artifact)
Relative dating- evaluating the age of one artifact/ecofact/feature relative to another (which is older than the other)
vs
Absolute dating- placing the age of the artifact/ecofact/feature on an absolute time scale (such as 4000 B.C. or A.D. 1970)…most are expressed in a range (the plus-minus symbol, or as "ca."= circa)
SERIATION
Seriation
Stylistic seriation
Frequency seriation - battleship-shaped curves
SEQUENCE COMPARISON
Sequence comparison aka cross-dating
STRATIGRAPHY
Stratigraphy
GEOCHRONOLOGY
Geochronology
Horizontal stratigraphy
OBSIDIAN HYDRATION
Obsidian hydration
FLORAL AND FAUNAL METHODS
Dendrochronology
Bone chemistry
RADIOMETRIC METHODS
Radiometric
Half-life
Radiocarbon dating (carbon-14)
Potassium-argon dating
Argon-argon dating
Uranium-series dating
Fission-track dating
ARCHAEOMAGNETISM
Archaeomagnetism
LIMITED AND EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
=========
In today's class, we also watched a portion of the DVD about the National Geographic Society's "Genographic Project."
DNA studies such as the Genographic Project have been used to supplement and cross-check the archaeological record, and the spread of humankind across the globe.
Next class's reading assignment (Tuesday, Feb. 19) is Ashmore and Sharer, Chapter 8: “Reconstructing the Past,” Pp. 179-211.
Reading for Today: Ashmore and Sharer, "Dating the Past," pp. 157-178.
Dating the Past
This is a great video about radiocarbon dating, also known as carbon-14 dating! This is the most generally useful method of absolute dating used in archaeology.
The most important things to remember about dating archaeological data:
1. Every method has its applicability/limitations to certain situations, materials, and ages.
2. The more you can cross-check dates through different methods, the more reliable the dates.
3. Your dates are only as good as your data, the way they were collected, etc.
4. You generally will not do the dating yourself, only the sampling; data is sent to laboratories and specialists, and can be expensive.
5. Dating materials is not an end in itself; dating is only significant in terms of the research questions you are asking.
TOPICS DISCUSSED IN CLASS (Read the Chapter for details):
Direct dating- analysis of the artifact, ecofact, or feature itself to find its age
vs
Indirect dating- analysis of the material associated with the artifact/ecofact/feature to find the age (ex: the matrix around the artifact)
Relative dating- evaluating the age of one artifact/ecofact/feature relative to another (which is older than the other)
vs
Absolute dating- placing the age of the artifact/ecofact/feature on an absolute time scale (such as 4000 B.C. or A.D. 1970)…most are expressed in a range (the plus-minus symbol, or as "ca."= circa)
SERIATION
Seriation
Stylistic seriation
Frequency seriation - battleship-shaped curves
SEQUENCE COMPARISON
Sequence comparison aka cross-dating
STRATIGRAPHY
Stratigraphy
GEOCHRONOLOGY
Geochronology
Horizontal stratigraphy
OBSIDIAN HYDRATION
Obsidian hydration
FLORAL AND FAUNAL METHODS
Dendrochronology
Bone chemistry
RADIOMETRIC METHODS
Radiometric
Half-life
Radiocarbon dating (carbon-14)
Potassium-argon dating
Argon-argon dating
Uranium-series dating
Fission-track dating
ARCHAEOMAGNETISM
Archaeomagnetism
LIMITED AND EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
=========
Genographic Project
In today's class, we also watched a portion of the DVD about the National Geographic Society's "Genographic Project."
DNA studies such as the Genographic Project have been used to supplement and cross-check the archaeological record, and the spread of humankind across the globe.
Next class's reading assignment (Tuesday, Feb. 19) is Ashmore and Sharer, Chapter 8: “Reconstructing the Past,” Pp. 179-211.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Feb. 12: Analyzing the Past
Feb. 12
Reading for today:
Ashmore and Sharer, Chapter 6, "Analyzing the Past," pp. 125-156.
We talked about Lithic Analysis today and in the video you saw an example of flintknapping. There are LOTS of vids on flintknapping on YouTube (See http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=flintknapping&search_type=&search=Search) and this is just one example...watch at least a bit of several listed on YouTube...including a 10-year-old flintknapper!
Remember! Next class (Thursday, Feb. 14) your first paper is due!
Today in class, we watched the videotape "People of the Hearth" about the PaleoIndian occupation of Barton Gulch in southwest Montana, about 9,400 years ago. It was very well done, with re-enacted scenes of daily life, and portrayed a processualist approach to archaeology. There were many specialized analyses in the video, including faunal analysis (ex: the deer bones at the site), floral analysis (ex: the use of goosefoot and prickly pear seeds for food), and lithic analysis (ex: the presence of obsidian). There were also several examples of experimental archaeology, including atlatl use, flintknapping, and cooking using ancient technigues such as sandwiching meat packets between layers of dampened bulrushes (Scirpus). Then we proceeded to the lecture; the outline is given below (just highlighted terms are given here; be sure and read the text!).
ARTIFACTS
Industries
Lithics:Chipped/Flaked Stone and Ground-stone
Lithics are the most common prehistoric artifacts in Montana
Chipped Stone:
Types of stone that fracture in a regular way: flint or chert, CCR, obsidian, basalt, quartz/quartzite
Variety of techniques
Core
Bulb of Percussion
Uniface
Biface
Flake
Blades
Lithic scatter
Debitage
Direct percussion
Indirect percussion
Pressure flaking
Retouching (retouched flakes)
Striking platform
Kinds of tools:
=Drills, gravers, points, blades, microblades, knives, spokeshaves, scrapers, shavers
Ground-stone
=Mano and Metate/grinding slab/quern
=Mortar and pestle
==>See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithic_analysis ; http://archnet.asu.edu/topical/Selected_Topics/Lithics.php
Ceramics
Ceramics: pottery, figurines, musical instruments, spindle whorls
(ceramics is additive technology vs lithics is subtractive)
Pottery
Potsherd (sometimes spelled shard)
Plasticity
Clay, temper, kneading/wedging
Pinching, Coiling, slabs, molds, wheel
Slip, glaze
Firing: up to three stages: dehydration, oxidation, vitrification
Analysis: by attribute (stylistic, form, technological); residues; provenience
Analyses: Form, wear use, residue
Montana Ceramics: Not much, only Intermountain Ware and the kind up in NE Montana
-->See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pottery
Metallurgy
Extracts metals from ores
Cold hammering copper
Annealing
Smelting
Alloys
Copper - bronze -iron (+ carbon = steel)
==>See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallurgy
Organic Artifacts
Problem with preservation
Wood, plant fibers (textiles, basketry, etc.), bone, antler, ivory, shell
Analysis: form, biotic resources
ECOFACTS
Classification different than artifacts; based on appropriate connection to zoology, botany, geology
Floral
1. Microspecimens: pollen, phytoliths
2. Macrospecimens: seeds, leaves, casts/impressions
Faunal
MNI= minimum number of individuals
Human Remains: biological / physical anthropology
Ethical issues
Diets
DNA
Mummification/bogs
Paleopathology
coprolites
==>See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_archaeology; ETHICS: http://www.worldarchaeologicalcongress.org/site/about_ethi.php
Geological
Soils and Sediments
=Geoarchaeology purposes (4):
1. Establish stratigraphy of site
2. Date the site
3. Understand natural site formation processes
4. Reconstruct the ancient landscape
-geomorphology
==>See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoarchaeology
FEATURES
Again, formal, and technological analyses (stylistic not as common as location)
--location and arrangement show distribution and organization of human activities
1. Constructed features- Built to provide space for an activity or set of activities (ex: windbreak, house, grave)
2. Cumulative features- Formed by accretion rather than a preplanned or designed construction of an activity area or facility (ex: midden, quarry, workshop area)
-conjoining studies
==>See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_(archaeology)
Sites mentioned in this chapter:
Stonehenge (England)
Chalcuapa (El Salvador)
Gordion (Turkey)
Shang Dynasty bronze vessels (China)
La Tene (Munsingen, Switzerland)
Hohokam (Arizona)
Olsen-Chubbuck (Colorado)
Upper Mantaro River Valley (Peru)
Star Carr (England)
Makapansgat (South Africa)
Tehuacan (Mexico)
North Acropolis, Tikal (Guatemala)
Lake Titicaca (Bolivia)
Acrotiri, Thera/Santorini (Aegean Sea, Greece)
Pompeii (Italy)
Ilopango volcano area (El Salvador)
Quirigua, Motagua River (Guatemala)
Scara Brae (Orkney Islands, Scotland)
Pyramids (Egypt)
Moche Valley (Peru)
Sweet Track, Somerset Levels (England)
Mono tribal sites (Sierra Nevada, California)
Bighorn Medicine Wheel (Wyoming)
Meer II (Belgium)
Next Class Readings for Thursday:
Ashmore and Sharer, Chapter 7: "Dating the Past," pp. 157-178
AGAIN, REMEMBER YOUR PAPER IS DUE AT THE BEGINNING OF THURSDAY'S CLASS
Reading for today:
Ashmore and Sharer, Chapter 6, "Analyzing the Past," pp. 125-156.
Analyzing the Past: Artifacts, Ecofacts, and Features
We talked about Lithic Analysis today and in the video you saw an example of flintknapping. There are LOTS of vids on flintknapping on YouTube (See http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=flintknapping&search_type=&search=Search) and this is just one example...watch at least a bit of several listed on YouTube...including a 10-year-old flintknapper!
Remember! Next class (Thursday, Feb. 14) your first paper is due!
Today in class, we watched the videotape "People of the Hearth" about the PaleoIndian occupation of Barton Gulch in southwest Montana, about 9,400 years ago. It was very well done, with re-enacted scenes of daily life, and portrayed a processualist approach to archaeology. There were many specialized analyses in the video, including faunal analysis (ex: the deer bones at the site), floral analysis (ex: the use of goosefoot and prickly pear seeds for food), and lithic analysis (ex: the presence of obsidian). There were also several examples of experimental archaeology, including atlatl use, flintknapping, and cooking using ancient technigues such as sandwiching meat packets between layers of dampened bulrushes (Scirpus). Then we proceeded to the lecture; the outline is given below (just highlighted terms are given here; be sure and read the text!).
ARTIFACTS
Industries
Lithics:Chipped/Flaked Stone and Ground-stone
Lithics are the most common prehistoric artifacts in Montana
Chipped Stone:
Types of stone that fracture in a regular way: flint or chert, CCR, obsidian, basalt, quartz/quartzite
Variety of techniques
Core
Bulb of Percussion
Uniface
Biface
Flake
Blades
Lithic scatter
Debitage
Direct percussion
Indirect percussion
Pressure flaking
Retouching (retouched flakes)
Striking platform
Kinds of tools:
=Drills, gravers, points, blades, microblades, knives, spokeshaves, scrapers, shavers
Ground-stone
=Mano and Metate/grinding slab/quern
=Mortar and pestle
==>See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithic_analysis ; http://archnet.asu.edu/topical/Selected_Topics/Lithics.php
Ceramics
Ceramics: pottery, figurines, musical instruments, spindle whorls
(ceramics is additive technology vs lithics is subtractive)
Pottery
Potsherd (sometimes spelled shard)
Plasticity
Clay, temper, kneading/wedging
Pinching, Coiling, slabs, molds, wheel
Slip, glaze
Firing: up to three stages: dehydration, oxidation, vitrification
Analysis: by attribute (stylistic, form, technological); residues; provenience
Analyses: Form, wear use, residue
Montana Ceramics: Not much, only Intermountain Ware and the kind up in NE Montana
-->See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pottery
Metallurgy
Extracts metals from ores
Cold hammering copper
Annealing
Smelting
Alloys
Copper - bronze -iron (+ carbon = steel)
==>See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallurgy
Organic Artifacts
Problem with preservation
Wood, plant fibers (textiles, basketry, etc.), bone, antler, ivory, shell
Analysis: form, biotic resources
ECOFACTS
Classification different than artifacts; based on appropriate connection to zoology, botany, geology
Floral
1. Microspecimens: pollen, phytoliths
2. Macrospecimens: seeds, leaves, casts/impressions
Faunal
MNI= minimum number of individuals
Human Remains: biological / physical anthropology
Ethical issues
Diets
DNA
Mummification/bogs
Paleopathology
coprolites
==>See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_archaeology; ETHICS: http://www.worldarchaeologicalcongress.org/site/about_ethi.php
Geological
Soils and Sediments
=Geoarchaeology purposes (4):
1. Establish stratigraphy of site
2. Date the site
3. Understand natural site formation processes
4. Reconstruct the ancient landscape
-geomorphology
==>See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoarchaeology
FEATURES
Again, formal, and technological analyses (stylistic not as common as location)
--location and arrangement show distribution and organization of human activities
1. Constructed features- Built to provide space for an activity or set of activities (ex: windbreak, house, grave)
2. Cumulative features- Formed by accretion rather than a preplanned or designed construction of an activity area or facility (ex: midden, quarry, workshop area)
-conjoining studies
==>See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_(archaeology)
Sites mentioned in this chapter:
Stonehenge (England)
Chalcuapa (El Salvador)
Gordion (Turkey)
Shang Dynasty bronze vessels (China)
La Tene (Munsingen, Switzerland)
Hohokam (Arizona)
Olsen-Chubbuck (Colorado)
Upper Mantaro River Valley (Peru)
Star Carr (England)
Makapansgat (South Africa)
Tehuacan (Mexico)
North Acropolis, Tikal (Guatemala)
Lake Titicaca (Bolivia)
Acrotiri, Thera/Santorini (Aegean Sea, Greece)
Pompeii (Italy)
Ilopango volcano area (El Salvador)
Quirigua, Motagua River (Guatemala)
Scara Brae (Orkney Islands, Scotland)
Pyramids (Egypt)
Moche Valley (Peru)
Sweet Track, Somerset Levels (England)
Mono tribal sites (Sierra Nevada, California)
Bighorn Medicine Wheel (Wyoming)
Meer II (Belgium)
Next Class Readings for Thursday:
Ashmore and Sharer, Chapter 7: "Dating the Past," pp. 157-178
AGAIN, REMEMBER YOUR PAPER IS DUE AT THE BEGINNING OF THURSDAY'S CLASS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)